Carry Trades and Global FX Volatility

Transcription

1 MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Carry Trades and Global FX Volatility Lukas Menkhoff and Lucio Sarno and Maik Schmeling and Andreas Schrimpf Leibniz Universität Hannover, Cass Business School, Center for European Economic Research (ZEW) 7. April 2009 Online at MPRA Paper No , posted 19. April :42 UTC

2 Carry Trades and Global FX Volatility Lukas Menkhoff Lucio Sarno Maik Schmeling Andreas Schrimpf, April 2009 Department of Economics, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Königsworther Platz 1, Hannover, Germany, phone: , Faculty of Finance, Cass Business School, City University London, EC1Y 8TZ, UK, Tel: , Fax: , Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) Mannheim, P.O. Box , Mannheim, Germany, Tel.: , The authors would like to thank Marcel Fratzscher, Mathias Hoffmann, Ian Marsh, and Jesper Rangvid as well as seminar participants at Deutsche Bundesbank and several universities for helpful comments and suggestions.

3 Carry Trades and Global FX Volatility Abstract We investigate the relation between global FX volatility and the excess returns to carry trade portfolios. We find a significantly negative return co-movement of high interest rate currencies with global volatility, whereas low interest rate currencies provide a hedge against volatility shocks. Our main global FX volatility proxy accounts for more than 90% of the return spread in five carry trade portfolios. Further analyses show that: (i) liquidity risk also matters for excess returns, but to a lesser degree; and that (ii) excess returns are more strongly related to unexpected components of volatility than to expected components. Our results are robust to different proxies for volatility risk, and extend to other cross-sections such as individual currency returns and (some) momentum portfolios. JEL-Classification: F31, G12, G15. Keywords: Carry Trade, Volatility, Liquidity, Forward Premium Puzzle.

4 1 Introduction This paper studies the risk-return profile of so-called carry trades, a popular trading strategy in international currency markets. A carry trade strategy invests in currencies which yield high interest rates and funds this investment by borrowing in currencies with low interest rates. changes will eliminate this interest rate margin. According to uncovered interest parity (UIP), exchange rate However, extensive empirical studies show that exchange rate changes do not compensate for the interest rate margin but rather the opposite: high interest rate currencies tend to appreciate while low interest rate currencies tend to depreciate which yields considerable returns to currency speculation. As a consequence, simple carry trades form a profitable investment strategy, violate UIP, and give rise to the forward premium puzzle (Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen, 2008). This puzzle and the resulting carry trade strategy are well documented for at least 25 years (Hansen and Hodrick, 1980; Fama, 1984). Considering the very liquid foreign exchange markets, the dismantling of barriers to capital flows between countries and the existence of international currency speculation during this period, it is difficult to understand why carry trades have been profitable for such a long time. 1 A straightforward and theoretically convincing solution for this puzzle is the consideration of time-varying risk premiums (Engel, 1984; Fama, 1984). If investments in currencies with high interest rates deliver low returns during bad times for investors, then carry trade profits are merely a compensation for higher risk-exposure by investors. However, the empirical literature has serious problems to convincingly identify risk factors that drive these premiums until today. In the empirical analysis of this paper we follow much of the recent literature (e.g. Burnside, Eichenbaum, Kleshchelski, and Rebelo, 2006; Lustig and Verdelhan, 2007; Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan, 2008) and sort currencies into portfolios according to their relative interest rate differential versus U.S. money market interest rates. 2 This yields a 1 Since the beginning of the recent global financial crisis, carry trade strategies have made substantial losses. However, these losses are relatively small when compared to the cumulative returns from carry trades of the last years (e.g. Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen, 2008). 2 Originally, the idea of sorting currencies into portfolios comes from Lustig and Verdelhan (2007) and has been followed by several other papers afterwards. 1

5 portfolio 1 with those 20 percent of currencies with the lowest relative interest rates up to a portfolio 5 with the highest relative interest rates at each point in time. Investing in portfolio 5 and shorting portfolio 1 therefore results in a carry trade portfolio. This carry trade leads to large and significant unconditional excess returns of more than 5% even after accounting for transaction costs and the recent market crash. These returns cannot be explained by simple measures of risk and seem to offer a free lunch to investors. Guided by theoretical suggestions from ICAPM-type models (Campbell, 1993, 1996) and earlier evidence for stock markets (e.g. Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006), we test whether the sensitivity of excess returns to global FX volatility can rationalize the returns to these five portfolios in a standard, linear asset pricing framework. We find clear evidence that high interest rate currencies deliver low returns in times of high volatility but that low interest rate currencies provide a hedge against volatility shocks. Therefore, carry trades perform especially poorly during times of market turmoil. This is the major point of this paper and it shows that excess returns to carry trades are indeed a compensation for time-varying risk. Our paper is closely related to two contributions in the recent literature. First, as in Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2008), we show that returns to carry trades can be understood by relating them cross-sectionally to two risk factors. Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2008) employ a data-driven approach and identify two risk factors that are (a) the average currency excess return of a large set of currencies against the USD (which they coin Dollar risk factor ) and (b) the return to the carry trade portfolio itself (the HML F X factor). Following them, we employ two risk factors to price the cross-section of carry trade returns, one of which is the Dollar risk factor. We differ from them by replacing their data-driven HML F X factor by an intuitively appealing risk factor: global foreign exchange market volatility. 3 We show that global FX volatility is a pervasive risk factor in the cross-section of FX excess returns. Second, Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen (2008) find that liquidity is a key driver of currency crashes: when liquidity dries up, currencies crash. Experience from the recent financial market crisis suggests that liquidity is potentially important for understanding the cross-section of carry trade excess returns as well. Following Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen (2008) we show that 3 Global FX volatility is only mildly correlated (about 30%) with the HML F X factor. We therefore do not exchange one factor for an essentially identical factor. 2

6 liquidity is useful more generally to understand the cross-section of carry trade returns, i.e. also in times when currencies do not crash. We comprehensively document, however, that our proxy for global FX volatility is the more powerful factor and that volatility subsumes the information contained in various liquidity proxies. Therefore, our main contribution relative to the existing literature is as follows. We show that global FX volatility is a key driver of time-varying risk premiums in carry trade returns. The pricing power of volatility furthermore extends to other cross-sections such as FX momentum portfolios and - to a lesser extent - to individual currencies excess returns as well. This finding is in line with results for other markets where it has been shown that volatility is helpful in pricing several asset classes such as stocks, stock options, or corporate bonds (Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006; Da and Schaumburg, 2008). Reassuringly, we show that FX volatility encompasses several proxies for financial market liquidity such as bid-ask spreads, the TED spread, or the Pastor and Stambaugh (2003) liquidity measure: FX volatility always dominates liquidity proxies in joint asset pricing tests where both factors enter the stochastic discount factor. Again, this finding corroborates evidence for stock markets where e.g. Bandi, Moise, and Russell (2008) show that stock market volatility drives out liquidity in cross-sectional asset pricing exercises. Therefore, results in our paper provide new insights into the behavior of time-varying risk premiums in currency markets in general as well as striking similarities between the relation of volatility and cross-sectional excess returns in FX and stock markets. We examine our main result in various specifications without qualitative changes. (i) Out of the universe of 48 currencies we take a sub-sample covering only 15 developed countries. (ii) We consider transactions costs by allowing for the bid-ask spread. (iii) We show that sorting currencies on their beta with volatility yields portfolios with a large spread in returns. These portfolios are related, but not identical, to our base test assets of currency portfolios sorted on forward discount. (iv) In order to better understand the economic meaning of volatility we also run the same tests with global illiquidity as a risk factor, where illiquidity is proxied for by (a) the size of the spread in foreign exchange markets, (b) the TED spread, or (c) the Pastor and Stambaugh (2003) liquidity measure for the U.S. equity market. Results show that these measures are related to volatility but that they are inferior and dominated by volatility in our asset pricing tests. (v) Finally, we 3

7 show that the unexpected component of volatility is the driving force behind our main result which is less evident for (un)expected components of liquidity. Moreover, we test the robustness of our results in five directions, again without qualitative changes. (1) We split the sample by half and then estimate our basic model again. (2) We change the volatility proxy by considering the VIX volatility index based on stock options which leads to a somewhat inferior explanatory power. Moreover, we experiment with weighting schemes of the global FX volatility index. (3) We depart from our base scenario of a U.S. representative investor and run calculations with alternative base currencies (GBP, CHF, JPY). (4) We investigate the explanatory performance of the proposed risk factor for other kinds of test assets. To this end, we use momentum portfolios, i.e. currencies sorted depending on previous excess returns. We find that a standard momentum 12-1-strategy, i.e. a momentum strategy with a formation period of 12 months and an investment period of 1 month, can again be well explained by global FX risk. However, this does not apply to a 1-1 strategy. Returns on these strategies provide a puzzle for us since they hedge against volatility risk and simultaneously earn high returns. (5) As an additional set of test assets, we use the whole cross-section of individual currencies excess returns and find a smaller but still recognizable relation with volatility in the cross-section. Our study is closely related to a new strand of literature suggesting explanations for the forward premium puzzle. Important contributions include Burnside, Eichenbaum, Kleshchelski, and Rebelo (2006) who argue that carry trades may be difficult to implement due to high transaction costs. Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen (2008) show that carry trades are related to low skewness indicating that they are subject to crash risk. Related to this, Melvin and Taylor (2009) show that proxies for market stress have some predictive power for carry trade returns. Burnside, Eichenbaum, Kleshchelski, and Rebelo (2008) carefully document that carry trades are still profitable after covering most of the downside risk through the use of derivatives so that the puzzle basically remains, whereas Burnside, Eichenbaum, and Rebelo (2009) suggest that the forward premium may be due to adverse selection risk. Lustig and Verdelhan (2007) provide evidence that currency risk premiums can be understood in the Durables CCAPM setting of Yogo (2006); Verdelhan (2008) shows how carry trade returns are related to risk arising from consumption habits, and Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2008) use an empirically derived two-factor model 4

8 which nicely explains the cross-section of currency portfolios and the carry trade, and also partly captures the 1-1 momentum strategy. We also rely on Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen (2008) in that we confirm some relevance for illiquidity as a risk factor. However, we cannot confirm that transaction costs are prohibitively important (Burnside, Eichenbaum, Kleshchelski, and Rebelo, 2006) or that skewness would be a far reaching proxy for risk in the currency market (Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen, 2008). The paper is structured into five more sections. First, we shortly review the conceptual role of volatility as a risk measure. Section 3 presents data and descriptive statistics. The main results regarding volatility risk are shown in Section 4. Section 5 provides results on the relation of volatility and liquidity risk, robustness tests are presented in Section 6, and conclusions are drawn in Section 7. 2 Volatility as a (Covariance-)Risk Factor in Foreign Exchange Overall, the idea that volatility has a role in determining asset valuations has long been a cornerstone of finance (Drechsler and Yaron, 2008). Despite its prominence in the stock market literature, there have been hardly any attempts to relate currency risk premiums cross-sectionally to currencies sensitivity to movements in aggregate volatility. If the FX literature has dealt with volatility, then volatility was seen as a driver of currency risk premiums in a time series setting (see e.g. Bekaert, 1994, 1995, for early contributions). It thus seems quite natural to employ a cross-sectional perspective on the role of (systematic) volatility for understanding currency risk premiums in general, and the forward premium puzzle and carry trades in particular. Therefore, we discuss earlier work in this area which helps motivate our approach. A useful starting point for our purpose is the thorough survey on the forward premium puzzle by Engel (1996). He covers studies which have assumed rational expectations and attempted to attribute the forward rate bias to a foreign exchange risk premium and concludes that models of the risk premium have been unsuccessful (p. 124). These models, which have been empirically unsuccessful in the end, include several time-series tests considering exchange rate volatility as a determinant of the risk premium, such as 5

9 Bekaert (1994, 1995) or Bekaert and Hodrick (1992). In general, efforts to explain currency risk premiums by relying on (largely idiosyncratic) volatility obtained from analyzing single currencies have not been satisfactory and a different approach seems warranted. We thus follow another line of literature which was originally developed with stock markets in mind, drawing on Merton s (1973) ICAPM theory. In an intertemporal asset pricing approach, the valuation of financial assets occurs according to their returns relation to various state variables which characterize the investor s set of future investment opportunities. In this vein, it has been analyzed recently whether the volatility of the market return is a systematic risk factor which should also be priced in the cross-section (Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006, p. 259). Ang et al. employ changes in the VIX index (from CBOE) to proxy for volatility risk. Indeed, they find that aggregate volatility is priced in the cross-section of U.S. stock returns and that stocks with a higher sensitivity to volatility risk do earn lower returns. Further studies in this line of literature include Adrian and Rosenberg (2008) who decompose market volatility into a long-run and a short-run component. They show that each component is priced separately with a negative factor risk price. Moreover, Da and Schaumburg (2008) price several asset classes with a pricing kernel that is linear in the aggregate stock market return and volatility. Their specification is based on the loglinearized discount factor from Campbell (1993) with Epstein-Zin utility. Finally, Bandi, Moise, and Russell (2008) do not only consider volatility but also liquidity as a further pricing factor. 4 They find that both risk factors are useful for understanding the pricing of U.S. stocks but that volatility dominates illiquidity when they are considered jointly. In their interpretation they regard both factors as proxies for a more fundamental distress factor so that the relative inferiority of illiquidity underlines the economic meaning and empirical importance of volatility. Summing up these papers on stock pricing, volatility emerges naturally as a state variable in ICAPM-type models (Merton, 1973; Campbell, 1996) where investors hedge against changes in future investment opportunities. This motivates our approach of pricing forward-discount sorted portfolios with a stochastic discount factor (SDF) depending linearly on an aggregate FX market return as well as 4 Also, see e.g. Acharyaa and Pedersen (2005), Brunnermeier and Pedersen (2009), or Evans and Lyons (2002) on the role of liquidity for asset prices. 6

10 aggregate FX market volatility. In addition to this line of literature, our approach of using the covariance of returns with market volatility as a priced source of risk is also related to the literature on coskewness (see e.g. Harvey and Siddique, 1999; Ang, Chen, and Xing, 2006, for asset pricing implementations of coskewness). 5 The general idea here is that portfolios with a high coskewness (i.e. portfolios delivering high returns when market volatility is high) serve as a hedge against volatility and should thus earn lower returns. Therefore, this idea is closely related to our setup. Furthermore, Dittmar (2002) uses Taylor approximations of general, non-linear pricing kernels to show that the covariance of returns with higherorder moments of returns (such as return variance) theoretically and empirically matters for equilibrium returns. All in all, there is a wealth of empirical evidence (and theoretical justification) that systematic volatility and stock returns are related cross-sectionally. We show that a similar approach is helpful to understand the cross-section of FX risk premiums as well. 3 Data and Currency Portfolios This section describes the data used in the empirical analyses, the construction of portfolios and associated excess returns, and our main proxy for global FX volatility. We also provide some basic descriptive statistics. Data source and sample currencies. The data for spot exchange rates and 1-month forward exchange rates cover the sample period from November 1983 to November 2008, and are obtained from BBI and Reuters (via Datastream). 6 forward rates in logs as s and f, respectively. 5 Coskewness is given by coskew = E [ (r k µ k )(r m µ k ) 2] σ(r k )σ 2 (r m ) We denote the spot and Our total sample consists of the following where r k, r m denote the return of a portfolio k and the market benchmark, respectively; and σ denotes standard deviation. Applying a covariance decomposition to the numerator above, the covariance of returns with market volatility naturally emerges from this framework as well. 6 Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2008) and Burnside, Eichenbaum, Kleshchelski, and Rebelo (2008) also use these data. 7

11 48 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Euro area, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Iceland, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom. Following Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2008) we also study a smaller sub-sample consisting only of 15 developed countries with a longer data history. This sample includes: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Euro area, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Portfolio construction. At the end of each period t, we allocate currencies to five portfolios based on their forward discounts f s at the end of period t. Sorting on forward discounts is equivalent to sorting on interest rate differentials since covered interest parity holds closely in the data (see e.g. Akram, Rime, and Sarno, 2008), i.e. f t s t i t i t where i denotes interest rates and stars indicate foreign countries. We re-balance portfolios at the end of each month. Currencies are ranked from low to high interests rates. Portfolio 1 contains currencies with the lowest interest rate (or smallest forward discounts) and portfolio 5 contains currencies with the highest interest rates (or largest forward discounts). Monthly excess returns for holding foreign currency k, say, are computed as rx k t+1 = i k t i t s k t+1 = f k t s k t+1. (1) We compute the log currency excess return rx j,t+1 for portfolio j by taking the (equally weighted) average of the log currency excess returns in each portfolio j. As in Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2008), we also compute excess returns for bid-ask spread adjusted currency positions. These are computed as rx l t+1 = ft b s a t+1 for long positions and rx s t+1 = ft a + s b t+1 for short positions. The return difference between portfolio 5 and portfolio 1 (the long-short portfolio H/L) then is the carry trade portfolio obtained from borrowing money in low interest rate countries and investing in high interest rate countries money markets. We also build and report results for a portfolio denoted DOL which is just the average of all five currency 8

12 portfolios, i.e. the average return of a strategy that borrows money in the U.S. and invests in global money markets outside the U.S. 7 Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics for the five forward discount portfolios, the DOL and H/L portfolio can be found in Table 1. The first two panels show results for the sample of all 48 countries and the lower two panels show results for the sample of 15 developed countries. We show results for unadjusted log excess returns (without b-a) and for returns adjusted for bid-ask spread transaction costs (with b-a). Average returns monotonically increase when moving from portfolio 1 to portfolio 5 and the H/L portfolio. We also see a monotonically decreasing skewness when moving from portfolio 1 to portfolio 5 and H/L for the sample of all countries, as suggested by Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen (2008), and an almost monotonic pattern for developed countries. A similar pattern emerges for excess kurtosis. There is no such pattern, however, for the standard deviation. Table 1 about here The unconditional average excess return from holding an equally-weighted portfolio of foreign currencies (i.e. the DOL portfolio) is about 2% per annum before transaction costs which suggests that U.S. investors demand a low but positive risk premium for holding foreign currency. 8 Figure 1, Panel (a), shows cumulative log returns for the carry trade portfolio H/L for all countries (solid black line) and for the smaller sample of developed countries (broken blue line). As may be expected, carry trade returns are much smoother for the sample of developed countries. Interestingly, carry trades among developed countries were more 7 Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan (2008) call this zero-cost portfolio the Dollar risk factor, hence the abbreviation DOL. 8 This premium is almost non-existent after transaction costs but it should be noted that transaction costs are calculated for an investor who buys and sells a currency each month. The unconditional buy and hold return is not affected by monthly transaction costs, so that the positive DOL return rather seems to be a risk premium for investing outside the U.S. and not a compensation for transaction costs. 9

13 profitable in the 80s and 90s, and only in the last part of the sample that the inclusion of emerging markets currencies improves returns to the carry trade. Volatility proxy. We use a straightforward measure to proxy for global FX volatility which is based on daily excess returns. More specifically, we calculate the absolute daily log return rτ k (= s τ ) for each currency k on each day τ in our sample. We then average over all currencies available on any given day and average daily values up to the monthly frequency, i.e. our global FX volatility proxy in month t is given by σ F X t [ = 1 ( ) ] r k τ (2) T t τ T t k K τ K τ where K τ denotes the number of available currencies on day τ and T t denotes the total number of trading days in month t. We also calculate a proxy σ F X,DEV t developed country sample s returns. based on the This proxy has obvious similarities to measures of realized volatility (see e.g. Andersen, Bollerslev, Diebold, and Labys, 2001), although we use absolute returns and not squared returns to minimize the impact of outlier returns since our full sample includes several emerging markets. We also do not weight currencies, e.g. according to shares in international reserves or trade, to limit the impact of arbitrary assumptions. 9 Figure 1, Panel (b), shows a time-series plot of σt F X. Several spikes in this series line up with known crisis periods, e.g. the LTCM crisis in 1998 or, most recently, the current financial market meltdown. Therefore, our proxy seems to capture obvious times of market distress quite well. Figure 1 about here 9 We provide robustness on this issue later in the paper. The main message is that our results do not change when using sensible weighting schemes. 10

14 4 Empirical Results This section presents our main findings. We briefly show our methodological approach (4.1) and present our main result in a graphical preview (4.2) before formal asset pricing test results are shown (4.3). Finally, we provide additional evidence from portfolios sorted on the basis of volatility betas (4.4). 4.1 Methodology We denote average excess returns of portfolio j in period t + 1 by rx j t+1. The usual noarbitrage relation applies so that currency excess return have a zero price and satisfy the basic Euler equation: E[m t+1 rx j t+1] = 0 (3) with a linear pricing kernel m t = 1 b (h t µ) and h denoting a vector of risk factors. b is the vector of factor loadings and µ denotes factor means. This specification implies a beta pricing model where expected excess returns depend on factor prices λ and risk quantities β j, which are the regression betas of portfolio excess returns on the risk factors: E [ rx j] = λ β j (4) for each portfolio j (see e.g. Cochrane, 2005). We estimate parameters of the above equation via the generalized method of moments (GMM) following Hansen (1982). Estimation is based on a prespecified weighting matrix and factor means are estimated by an additional moment condition. 10 In the following tables we report estimates of b and implied λs as well as cross-sectional R 2 s and the HJ distance measure (Hansen and Jagannathan, 1997). We also report simulated [ 10 (1 b The moment conditions are (h t+1 µ)) rx j t+1 [ h t+1 µ IN 0 matrix W = 0 p to have large values in order to pin down the factor means exactly. ] with corresponding prespecified weighting ] so that the five portfolios are given equal weight in the minimization. We set p 11

15 p-values for the test of whether the HJ distance is equal to zero. 11 We additionally employ the traditional Fama-MacBeth two-step methodology (Fama and MacBeth, 1973) to estimate factor prices and portfolio betas. Our Fama-MacBeth procedure is standard and we employ first-step time-series regressions of the form rx j t+1 = α j + β j h t+1 + ε j t+1 (5) to estimate in-sample betas for each portfolio j. These betas are then used in crosssectional regressions to estimate factor prices λ at each point in time rx j t+1 = ˆβ j λt+1 + ɛ j t+1, j = 1,..., N. (6) Estimates of factor prices λ are then obtained by averaging the λ t -estimates over time. This is the standard procedure as outlined e.g. in Cochrane (2005). Note that we do not include a constant in the second stage of the Fama-MacBeth regressions, i.e. we do not allow a common over- or under-pricing in the cross-section of returns. We point out, however, that our results are virtually identical when we replace the DOL factor with a constant in the second stage regressions. Since DOL has essentially no cross-sectional relation to the carry trade portfolios returns it seems to serve the same purpose as a constant that allows for a common mispricing A First Look at the Relation between Volatility and Currency Returns We first provide a simple graphical analysis to visualize the relationship between global FX volatility and currency excess returns. To do so, we divide the sample into four samples depending on the value of a risk factor. The first sub-sample contains the 25% months with lowest realizations of the risk factor and the fourth sub-sample contains the 11 Simulations are based on weighted χ 2 (1)-distributed random variables. For more details on the computation of the HJ distance and the respective tests, see Jagannathan and Wang (1996) and Parker and Julliard (2005). 12 Also see Burnside (2007) and Lustig and Verdelhan (2008) on the issue of whether to in- or exclude a constant. 12

16 25% months with the highest realizations. We then calculate average excess returns for these sub-samples for three different long-short portfolios: the return difference between portfolio 5 and 1, portfolio 5 and 3, and portfolio 3 and 1. Results are shown in Figure 2. Panel (a) on the left shows results for all countries whereas Panel (b) on the right gives the corresponding results for the smaller sample of 15 developed countries. Figure 2 about here Black bars show the return difference between portfolio 5 and 1 (i.e. the H/L portfolio), dark grey bars show portfolio 5 minus 3, and light grey bars give the return difference between portfolio 3 and 1. As can be seen from the figure, high interest rate currencies clearly yield higher excess returns when volatility is low and vice versa. Average excess returns for all three long-short portfolios decrease monotonically when moving from the low to high volatility states. While this analysis is intentionally simple, it intuitively demonstrates the strong relationship between global FX volatility and returns to carry trade portfolios. Times of high volatility are clearly times when the carry trade performs poorly. Consequently, low interest rate currencies perform well compared to high interest rate currencies when the market is volatile, i.e. low interest rate currencies (i.e. funding currencies) provide a hedge in times of market turmoil. 13 The following sections test this finding more rigorously. 4.3 Asset Pricing Tests This section presents our main result that excess returns to carry trade portfolios can be understood by their covariance exposure with global FX volatility. Table 2 presents results for asset pricing tests based on equations (3) (5) and using the five currency portfolios detailed above as test assets. As factors, we use DOL and global FX volatility (VOL), i.e. the pricing kernel is: 13 Clarida, Davis, and Pedersen (2009) document a similar feature and relate this to results from Fama UIP regressions. 13

17 m t+1 = (1 b DOL (DOL t+1 µ DOL ) b V OL (σ F X t+1 µ σ )). Panel A of Table 2 shows cross-sectional pricing results. We are primarily interested in the factor price risk of global FX volatility, where we do indeed find a significantly negative estimate for λ V OL as theoretically expected. In fact, λ V OL is estimated to be negative both for the full country sample (left part of the table) and the developed country sample (right part of the table), and this estimate is significant for both the GMM and FMB estimates (with or without the Shanken adjustment). The negative factor price estimate directly translates into lower risk premiums for portfolios that co-move positively with volatility (i.e. volatility hedges) whereas portfolios with a negative covariance with volatility demand a risk premium. We also find that the volatility factor yields an extremely good cross-sectional fit with R 2 s of more than 90%, and we cannot reject the null that the HJ distance is equal to zero. The values of the distance measure (i.e. the maximum pricing errors) are also quite small in economic terms and only reach values of 9% and 4% for the full and the developed country sample, respectively. Now, which portfolios provide insurance against volatility risk and which do not? Panel B of Table 2 shows time-series beta estimates for the five forward discount-sorted portfolios based on the full and the developed country sample. Estimates of β V OL are large and positive for currencies with a low forward discount (i.e. with low interest rates), whereas countries with a high forward discount co-move negatively with global FX volatility. There is a strikingly monotone decline in betas when moving from the first to the fifth portfolio and it is exactly this monotone relationship that produces the large spread in mean excess returns shown in Table 1. These results also corroborate our graphical exposition (Figure 2) in the previous section. Table 2 about here To examine whether these results are driven by transaction costs, Table 2 also shows 14

18 results when the test assets excess returns are bid-ask spread adjusted. Results are very similar to those above so that transaction costs (measured via bid-ask spreads) do not seem to drive our results. Rather, we find lower (maximum) pricing errors as indicated by the lower HJ-distances for transaction cost adjusted returns in Table 2. Finally, we document the fit of our model graphically in Figure 3 which shows realized mean excess returns along the horizontal axis and fitted mean excess returns implied by our model along the vertical axis. Panel A (for the full sample) and Panel B (for the developed country sample) show that our risk factor is able to reproduce the spread in mean returns quite well. This is especially true for the low interest rate portfolio (P1) whose return is matched very closely. We are slightly underpredicting mean excess returns for the other corner portfolio, P5, however. The difference in the fit between the full and developed country sample seems to be very small. Figure 3 about here 4.4 Beta Sorts: Volatility We now show the explanatory power of volatility risk for carry trade portfolios in another dimension. If volatility is a priced factor then it is reasonable to assume that currencies sorted on their exposure to volatility movements yield a cross-section of portfolios with a significant spread in mean returns. 14 Currencies that hedge against volatility risk should trade at a discount whereas currencies that yield low returns when volatility is high should demand a positive risk premium in equilibrium, consistent with ICAPM theory (Merton, 1973; Campbell, 1993, 1996). We therefore sort currencies into five portfolios depending on their past beta with global FX volatility. We use rolling estimates of beta with a rolling window of 36 months (as in Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan, 2008) and we re-balance portfolios every six months. Portfolio excess returns are shown in Table 3. We do not adjust for transaction costs here, 14 Beta sorts are a common means to investigate risk premiums in financial markets (see e.g. Pastor and Stambaugh, 2003; Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006; Lustig, Roussanov, and Verdelhan, 2008). 15

19 since portfolio re-balancing occurs only twice per year. Thus, transaction costs will be small anyway. Table 3 about here The table shows that the spread between currencies with a high volatility beta (i.e. hedges against risk ) and currencies with low betas is clearly positive. Also, some of these portfolios deliver high Sharpe Ratios. Pre- and post-formation forward discounts suggest that these portfolios are similar to the carry trade portfolios. However, a noteworthy feature of these portfolios is, that they have a very different skewness pattern compared to the forward discount-sorts. Table 1 shows that excess returns of high interest rate currencies have much lower skewness than low interest rate currencies (also see Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen, 2008). We do not find this pattern here. On the contrary, the H/L portfolios actually tend to be positively skewed (except for a slightly negative skewness for developed countries) which suggests that sorting on volatility betas produces portfolios related to, but not identical to the carry trade portfolios. All in all, this section has shown that volatility risk as measured by the covariance of a portfolio s return with volatility matters for understanding the cross-section of currency excess returns. This empirical relation is in line with theoretical arguments where assets which offer high payoffs in times of high aggregate volatility and thus serve as a volatility hedge trade at a discount in equilibrium and vice versa. 5 Relating Volatility and Liquidity Risk As noted in the first two sections, it is hard to disentangle volatility and liquidity effects since both concepts are closely related and especially in the case of liquidity not directly observable. However, it is clearly interesting to find out about the contribution of these two proxies of risk for currency investments since Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen (2008) suggest that liquidity is potentially crucial to understand risk premiums in foreign exchange. This section therefore relates volatility and liquidity proxies and investigates 16

20 their relative pricing power. We start with a short overview of liquidity measures employed in this paper (5.1) and then move on to present empirical results for the explanatory power of liquidity factors (5.2) and the pricing information contained in expecte9and unexpected components of volatility and liquidity factors (5.3). 5.1 Liquidity Proxies Global Bid-Ask Spread. As a first measure of global FX liquidity, we resort to a classical measure from market microstructure, the bid-ask spread (BAS). For consistency, we use the same aggregating scheme as for global FX volatility in equation (2) to obtain our global bid-ask spread measure ψ F X : ψ F X t [ = 1 ( ) ] ψ k τ. (7) T t τ T t k K τ K τ where ψ k τ is the percentage bid-ask spread of currency k on day τ. Higher bid-ask spreads indicate lower liquidity, so that our aggregate measure ψ F X t for FX market illiquidity. can be seen as a global proxy TED spread. The TED spread is defined as the interest rate difference between 3- months Eurodollar interbank deposits (LIBOR) and 3-months T-Bills. Differences between these rates reflect among other things the willingness of banks to provide funding in the interbank market so that a large spread should be related to lower liquidity. Therefore, the TED spread serves as an illiquidity measure, as used e.g. by Brunnermeier, Nagel, and Pedersen (2008). We include the TED spread to proxy for illiquidity in global money markets. Pastor/Stambaugh liquidity measure. Pastor and Stambaugh (2003) construct a liquidity measure for the U.S. stock market based on price reversals. The general idea underlying their measure (denoted PS here) is that stocks with low liquidity should be characterized by a larger price impact of order flow. Liquidity-induced movements of asset prices have to be reversed eventually such that stronger price reversals indicate lower 17

21 liquidity. We refer to Pastor and Stambaugh (2003) for more details on the construction of this measure and simply note here that they scale their measure to be a liquidity proxy, i.e. higher values of the PS measure mean higher liquidity. This contrasts with our other three liquidity measures which rather measure illiquidity. We include it as a proxy for global stock market liquidity. Relations among volatility and liquidity factors. Table 4 shows correlation coefficients and principal components for the three liquidity proxies and global FX volatility. We multiply the PS measure by minus 1 to make results more easily interpretable here. The upper panel shows correlation coefficients and it can be seen that our FX volatility proxy is positively correlated with all three illiquidity measures, which is not surprising. However, the relation between the three illiquidity measures is far from perfect. Bidask spreads and the TED spread are negatively correlated for example and the other correlations are close to zero. Table 4 about here The lower panel of Table 4 also shows a principal components analysis which serves to investigate different dimensions of volatility and liqudity. The first principal components only explain about 35% of total variation, which corroborates results from the correlation analysis and shows that global volatility and illiquidity have several dimensions. The first PC can be seen as the common component of all four proxies, whereas the second PC contrasts the FX-based measures from the money and equity markets. The third PC further contrasts the TED spread and the PS factor, whereas the fourth PC still explains about 14% of the total variation and mainly captures differences between FX volatility and bid-ask spreads. 5.2 Empirical Results for Liquidity Factors To shed more light on the role of liquidity risk for currency returns, we run the same assetpricing exercises as above but replace the volatility factor with one of the three liquidity 18

22 factors. Table 5 shows factor loadings and prices for these models. All three models shown in Panels A to C perform quite well and are not rejected by the HJ distance measure or the χ 2 test with Shanken adjustment. Also, factor prices λ have the expected sign negative for illiquidity (BAS, TED) and positive for liquidity (PS) and are significantly different from zero (except for the PS factor in the sample of all 48 countries). None of these three models clearly outperforms the volatility risk factor in terms of R 2 s and HJ-distances for both the full and the restricted developed country sample. Table 5 about here To address the relative importance of volatility and liquidity as risk factors, we also evaluated several specifications where we include volatility and one of the liquidity factors (or, alternatively, that part of liquidity not explained by contemporaneous volatility) jointly in the discount factor. Here, we report results for the full country sample without transaction costs for the case where both volatility and one of the three liquidity factors are included. Results are shown in Table The central message of these results is that volatility is the dominant factor, corroborating evidence in Bandi, Moise, and Russell (2008) for U.S. stock markets. Panel A, for example, shows results for jointly including global volatility and global bid-ask spreads and both b V OL and λ V OL are significantly different from zero (at 10% and 5%, respectively), whereas the bid-ask spread factor is found to be insignificant in this joint specification. The same result is basically found for the TED spread (Panel B) and Pastor and Stambaugh s liquidity factor (Panel C). Volatility remains significantly priced, whereas liquidity factors always become insignificant when jointly including them with volatility. We therefore conclude that volatility is more important than each of the three single liquidity factors. However, we cannot rule out an explanation based on volatility just being a summary measure of various dimensions of liquidity which are not captured by our three (il)liquidity proxies, of course. Table 6 about here 15 Results for developed countries and with bid-ask spread adjusted returns are very similar. 19

23 5.3 Expected versus Unexpected Components of Volatility and Liquidity We also look at pricing information contained in expected and unexpected parts of our volatility and (il)liquidity risk factors. Looking at expected and unexpected components seems sensible, since the effect of volatility risk is best understood in an ICAPM framework (see Campbell, 1993, 1996). In this framework, investors want to hedge against changes in future investment opportunities so that innovations in volatility or liquidity may be more important than the level of these variables. As in Bandi, Moise, and Russell (2008), we employ time-series methods to decouple expected and unexpected factor components. For consistency, we estimate simple ARMA(1,1) models for all four factors (volatility, bid-ask spreads, TED spread, and the Pastor/Stambaugh liquidity factor). Estimation results (not shown for the sake of brevity) suggest that serial correlation in the factors is effectively removed by this parsimonious specification. We use expected (EXP) and unexpected factor components (UNEXP) jointly in our asset pricing exercises. Our pricing kernel thus reads: m t+1 = 1 b DOL (DOL t+1 µ DOL ) b E (h E t+1 µ E ) b U (h U t+1 µ U ) where h is one of the four factors. Figure 4 shows estimates for β E (solid, red line) and β U (dashed, blue line) for the five forward discount-sorted portfolios. Betas for the global volatility factor in Panel (a) show that betas to the unexpected component of volatility monotonically decrease when moving from portfolio 1 to portfolio 5. This pattern is inversely related to the monotonically increasing average excess returns to the five portfolios. However, we do not find this pattern for the expected volatility component so that the cross-sectional pricing power of volatility stems mainly from the unexpected part of volatility which is in line with earlier results for equity markets (see e.g. Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006). Figure 4 about here 20

24 Looking at results for the liquidity proxies, we find a similar result for global bid-ask spreads (Panel (b)) which suggests a tight relation between the volatility and illiquidity measures in foreign exchange. The TED spread in Panel (c) shows a different behavior, though. Here, both betas to expected and unexpected factor components monotonically decrease so that both components seem to carry the same pricing information. Finally, Panel (d) shows betas to the expected and unexpected part of the Pastor/Stambaugh liquidity factor (the vertical axis is inverted to make results comparable to the other illiquidity factors). Betas to the unexpected component show the same pattern as above but we find a completely reversed pattern for the expected component which seems puzzling. Higher sensitivity of a currency portfolio to expected liquidity in stock markets is associated with lower returns. Finally, Table 7 shows cross-sectional test results. Corroborating the findings discussed above, we find that the unexpected components of volatility and bid-ask spread are significantly priced (with a negative λ), respectively, whereas expected components do not matter. This is also confirmed by b UNEXP estimates which can be used to test for whether factors are marginally priced relative to the other factors. 16 Evidence for the TED spread and Pastor/Stambaugh factor components is less convincing. This is unsurprising for the TED spread since the two factor components seem to carry the same pricing information which is also evident from the identical factor price estimates. The unexpected part of the Pastor/Stambaugh factor has the right sign but is (marginally) not significant. Economically, this may be due to the fact that U.S. stock market liquidity is less relevant for global FX markets than liquidity factors from money markets (TED spread) or direct FX measures (FX volatility and bid-ask spreads). Table 7 about here Summing up, we find that using unexpected components does not uniformly enhance the empirical fit of our models. While there is clear evidence that unexpected volatility seems 16 The λ U estimates are indeed statistically significant with (Shanken-adjusted) t-statistics of -2.6 (unexpected volatility) and -2.3 (unexpected bid-ask spreads). Also, t-statistics for b U estimates are (unexpected volatility) and -2.1 (unexpected bid-ask spreads), respectively. This is hard to see in Table 7 due to the two-digit rounding of numbers. 21

25 to be the driving force behind our main result (consistent with theoretical arguments in Campbell, 1993, 1996), there is less evidence for expected versus unexpected components of il(liquidity). 6 Robustness Issues This section presents evidence on the robustness of our results by investigating the sensitivity of estimation results for different sub-samples, an alternative proxy for volatility (the options-based VIX), alternative base currencies, and different cross-sections, namely momentum portfolios and the cross-section of individual currencies. Sub-sample analysis. We estimate our basic model with DOL and VOL as risk factors on two sub-samples covering (a) the period and (b) the period This split yields roughly equal sample sizes. It also serves to divide our sample into an earlier period where the FX market was dominated by trading bilaterally and over-thecounter and a more recent period that has seen the advent of electronic trading systems (e.g. EBS, Reuters) that dominate FX markets today. Results are shown in Table 8. Factor price estimates for volatility are significantly negative in both periods. Regarding the empirical fit of our model, we find that the first subperiod from 1983 to 1995 provides a better fit in terms of the cross-sectional R 2 and pricing errors as measured by the HJ-distance. Factor prices are larger and more precisely estimated in the second sub-sample though. All in all, our main result regarding volatility risk is robust to using different sub-samples. Table 8 about here Other proxies for volatility. We repeat our main asset pricing setup but use the VIX volatility index (CBOE), based on stock options, instead of the global FX volatility proxy proposed in this paper (e.g. Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006, also use the 22